Re: Defining "on the Internet"

"Daniel J. Weitzner" <djw@eff.org> Mon, 15 August 1994 22:16 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12958; 15 Aug 94 18:16 EDT
Received: from CNRI.RESTON.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa12954; 15 Aug 94 18:16 EDT
Received: from lists.psi.com by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18651; 15 Aug 94 18:16 EDT
Received: by lists.psi.com (5.65b/SMI-4.1.3-PSI) id AA07811; Mon, 15 Aug 94 15:58:22 -0400
Return-Path: <djw@eff.org>
Received: from psi.com by lists.psi.com (5.65b/SMI-4.1.3-PSI) id AA07790; Mon, 15 Aug 94 15:58:01 -0400
Received: from eff.org by psi.com (4.1/2.1-PSI/PSINet) id AA17198; Mon, 15 Aug 94 15:57:57 EDT
Received: from [192.77.172.154] (danny.eff.org [192.77.172.154]) by eff.org (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id PAA28106; Mon, 15 Aug 1994 15:57:16 -0400
Message-Id: <199408151957.PAA28106@eff.org>
X-Sender: djw@eff.eff.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 15:57:17 -0600
To: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@mordor.stanford.edu>, Mike Bauer <bauer@tig.com>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Daniel J. Weitzner" <djw@eff.org>
Subject: Re: Defining "on the Internet"
Cc: Mike Schwartz <schwartz@latour.cs.colorado.edu>, com-priv@psi.com, inet-marketing@einet.net

At  3:52 PM 8/12/94 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 5:01 PM 8/10/94, Mike Bauer wrote:
>>There are several good schools that teach both journalism and the
>>Internet.  I'm sure you can find any one of several thousand on the
>>Net.
>
>Mike, et al,
>
>perhaps we should try to help these neophytes by developing some "standard"
>terminology.  The phrase "on the Internet" gets debated about every 5 years
>and I guess we are due for another round.  The trick is to have the minimum
>number of terms with the maximum useful distinction.  How about these
>three:
>
>1.  Attached to the Internet Backbone -- can show up on a ping test
>
>2.  Attached to the Internet Web -- can reach Web servers around the net.
>    The "socks" package handily lets such folks get past firewalls, and is
>    indicative of having general access to interactive Internet services.
>
>3.  Attached to Internet Email -- can exchange email with someone attached
>    to the core.  (Let's avoid the MIME vs. Text-only distinction.  While I
>    personally find it important, I'm not sure we should muddy the waters
>    at this level.)
>
>Thoughts?

I'd like to suggest a functional, not technical definition.  The solution
here may be to just admit that there are two (at least) levels of
connectivity from a functional user perspective, and try to gather
statistical benchmarks which record both levels.  This would yield:

1. "full" connectivity -- site can access and support full range of
whatever is in the current universe of internet services (ftp, www, gopher,
etc.)

I'm sure that there is a technically elegant way to say this, but what it
would reflect is the number of sites which are full participants in the
Internet way of doing things.  This number is relevant for understanding
the reach of the net in its fullest sense.

2. Global email -- as others have already suggested, the sites that offer
connectivity with internet email.

This number is important because it gives the number of sites with lowest
common denominator access.

I believe that it is important to keep track of both of these indicators. 
It's a little more complicated, but does come closer to reflecting the
reality out there in the world.  There should be a way to recongize that
there are folks on Compuserve, AOL, etc, who have some level of access, but
do not have access to all services.

I can say, from my narrow public policy perspective here in Washington,
that these statistics are batted around all the time, and even form the
basis of some important decisions.  As such, I think that it's best that
the numbers reflect the truth as best as possible.  If the truth is a
little complicated, then we should all just get used to that.  Insisting on
one number to represent all activity online is like asking how many people
in the world read any kind of print publication at all, as opposed to
saying how many read daily newspapers, how many weekly magazines, etc.  

A little detail will help to teach the un-wired that there are a lot of
different kinds of access, and that the functional distinctions make a
difference.

I'd be interested to work with the appropriate groups on this issue.

Danny

......................................................................
Daniel J. Weitzner, Deputy Policy Director       <djw@eff.org>
Electronic Frontier Foundation                   202-347-5400 (v) 
1001 G St, NW  Suite 950 East                    202-393-5509 (f)
Washington, DC 20001                      [PGP key available via finger]

*** Join EFF!!!  Send mail to membership@eff.org for information ***